It is easy to oppose US foreign policy on moral grounds, but unfortunately there are real and practical concerns that Progressives must deal with if our beliefs are to remain grounded in reality. One of these concerns is energy scarcity (peak oil).
As Michael Ruppert points out in “Crossing the Rubicon”, our entire way-of-life is based on the abundance of affordable energy. If our energy supply runs out, the world will plunge into chaos and a good many of us will die of war and starvation. Think, for a moment, of all the energy that goes into producing and transporting our food alone.
So the Neocons come to power with a plan that at least delays the inevitable. Obviously, the only way these morons are allowed to rule is because enough of the ruling elites think their plans make sense. So, my thinking is...if we Progressives could come up with a more desirable plan, we might be allowed to rule and the elites might rig the next election in our favor. See, the mistake is to believe that we live in a Democracy. In reality, you have to achieve your ends by selling to power so that power can sell to the people. If you go directly to the people with a great idea, you are so easily undermined by big media and corporate power. Look at Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader.
So the Neocon plan actually makes a lot of sense logistically: you have the resources, but we want them so we'll take them. Oh, and in the process of doing so we'll make the rich elites even richer. Oh, and in the process of making the rich richer we'll build weapons that can be used for population control when the oil runs out. The ruling elites may not want to kill us off in an ideal world, but if push comes to shove they'll surely do it to save themselves.
I know...the Dems talk about "inventing our way out of this problem" and becoming "self-sufficient", but how many PNAC-like think-tanks have they set up to determine exactly how that would be done...to actively plan and manipulate world events so that it *is* done? Progressives also talk a lot about conserving energy, which certainly has to be a key component of any viable strategy, but for some reason this message isn't being sold well enough to the right people.
What exactly can *really* be done to balance severe scarcity with values like equal opportunity and justice for all? We can't really deliver on our promises unless we have a specific, viable plan to fix energy scarcity and material scarcity in general.